The Expressive Power of k-ary Exclusion Logic

In this paper we study the expressive power of k-ary exclusion logic, EXC[k], that is obtained by extending first order logic with k-ary exclusion atoms. It is known that without arity bounds exclusion logic is equivalent with dependence logic. By observing the translations, we see that the expressive power of EXC[k] lies in between k-ary and (k+1)-ary dependence logics. We will show that, at least in the case of k=1, the both of these inclusions are proper. In a recent work by the author it was shown that k-ary inclusion-exclusion logic is equivalent with k-ary existential second order logic, ESO[k]. We will show that, on the level of sentences, it is possible to simulate inclusion atoms with exclusion atoms, and this way express ESO[k]-sentences by using only k-ary exclusion atoms. For this translation we also need to introduce a novel method for "unifying" the values of certain variables in a team. As a consequence, EXC[k] captures ESO[k] on the level of sentences, and we get a strict arity hierarchy for exclusion logic. It also follows that k-ary inclusion logic is strictly weaker than EXC[k]. Finally we will use similar techniques to formulate a translation from ESO[k] to k-ary inclusion logic with strict semantics. Consequently, for any arity fragment of inclusion logic, strict semantics is more expressive than lax semantics.Comment: Preprint of a paper in the special issue of WoLLIC2016 in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 170(9):1070-1099, 201

Capturing k-ary Existential Second Order Logic with k-ary Inclusion-Exclusion Logic

In this paper we analyze k-ary inclusion-exclusion logic, INEX[k], which is obtained by extending first order logic with k-ary inclusion and exclusion atoms. We show that every formula of INEX[k] can be expressed with a formula of k-ary existential second order logic, ESO[k]. Conversely, every formula of ESO[k] with at most k-ary free relation variables can be expressed with a formula of INEX[k]. From this it follows that, on the level of sentences, INEX[k] captures the expressive power of ESO[k]. We also introduce several useful operators that can be expressed in INEX[k]. In particular, we define inclusion and exclusion quantifiers and so-called term value preserving disjunction which is essential for the proofs of the main results in this paper. Furthermore, we present a novel method of relativization for team semantics and analyze the duality of inclusion and exclusion atoms.Comment: Extended version of a paper published in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 169 (3), 177-21

Game-Theoretic Semantics for Alternating-Time Temporal Logic

We introduce versions of game-theoretic semantics (GTS) for Alternating-Time Temporal Logic (ATL). In GTS, truth is defined in terms of existence of a winning strategy in a semantic evaluation game, and thus the game-theoretic perspective appears in the framework of ATL on two semantic levels: on the object level in the standard semantics of the strategic operators, and on the meta-level where game-theoretic logical semantics is applied to ATL. We unify these two perspectives into semantic evaluation games specially designed for ATL. The game-theoretic perspective enables us to identify new variants of the semantics of ATL based on limiting the time resources available to the verifier and falsifier in the semantic evaluation game. We introduce and analyse an unbounded and (ordinal) bounded GTS and prove these to be equivalent to the standard (Tarski-style) compositional semantics. We show that in these both versions of GTS, truth of ATL formulae can always be determined in finite time, i.e., without constructing infinite paths. We also introduce a non-equivalent finitely bounded semantics and argue that it is natural from both logical and game-theoretic perspectives.Comment: Preprint of a paper published in ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 19(3): 17:1-17:38, 201

Creating competitive advantage in a mature B2B market by branding

Siirretty Doriast